eagle eye wrote: » Well I wasn't aware of that. I'm against abortion because you made a mistake. We have pills for both before and after, and other types of contraceptives too. Nobody should be allowed an abortion just because they made a mistake and then didn't bother their arse to make sure to prevent it. It should be against the law imo.
Elisabeth Wrong Stork wrote: Women having crisis pregnancies, miscarriages, fertility treatment, FFA pregnancies, and people who for all sorts of reasons might want privacy enter family planning clinics. They're a clear attempt to intimidate and shame people who are going through a very difficult and emotional (not to mention hormonal) time, and for whom "Just ignore them" is deeply stupid, glib advice. Regardless of their effectiveness, they're despicable in intent.
ELM327 wrote: Too bad as that's what the people voted for.
ELM327 wrote: I don't agree with you having the right to smoke, but my disagreement is not enough to impinge on your autonomy in your own home. Same here. You don't get to control women. It's not 1940 anymore bud.
eagle eye wrote: » I'm fully with you on this. If they get no reaction you'll see their numbers fall though. I know it's a difficult time for lots of women too. If you can do what I'm saying you'll feel proud of yourself afterwards. As I said head up and don't make eye contact with any of them which is telling them they are beneath you.
eagle eye wrote: » Unfortunately I voted for it without knowing.
eagle eye wrote: » Unfortunately I voted for it without knowing. I don't smoke.
amcalester wrote: Plenty of ways for you to have kept yourself informed, there were leaflets, banners websites, literature etc. Nobody who couldn't bother their arse to read up on the issue should be allowed vote.
amcalester wrote: Or, you know, it's none of my business why you voted the way you did.
eagle eye wrote: » I thought it was just a vote to repeal the law that was in place. I didn't need to read anything to know that it had to go. I want a responsible society. Getting an abortion just because a person was irresponsible is just wrong imo. What would you say if the girl wanted to keep the child and the father said he was just irresponsible that night get and wanted no part in paying for the upbringing of the child?
ELM327 wrote: I'd say he should be allowed a legal opt out, but that's a different issue. (As a male)
SusieBlue wrote: The alternative is forcing parenthood on (as you said) "irresponsible" people who can't even be trusted to take a pill. Do you believe this to be in the best interests of an innocent child? Do you believe someone that irresponsible, and who also does not want a child, would make a good parent? Is that fair on the baby? Or do we only want to punish the irresponsible parent mother?
SusieBlue wrote: Honestly all this was done to death several times over before May 25th.
eagle eye wrote: » There are lots of people out there looking to adopt. I hate even saying that because I feel like I'm one of those no campaigners and I'm far from it. I don't accept irresponsibility as a good enough reason for abortion. I avoided the campaigners, I had to vote to repeal the law that was in place. I had no idea that there was something as part of the vote to replace it. A big error on my part.
Sean.3516 wrote: » New to the thread. Just wondering what people’s views were on the protests that took place outside a GP’s practice in Galway. Should they be able to do it? My take on it is that they should have the right to stand there with their signs to the extent that they aren’t disrupting public order. They’re not being coercive or harrassing anyone. There just voicing opposition to an elective procedure they disagree with on a moral level. There’s nothing unruly about it.
eagle eye wrote: » I avoided the campaigners, I had to vote to repeal the law that was in place. I had no idea that there was something as part of the vote to replace it. A big error on my part.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » They are harassing people entering the clinic. Minister Harris should legislate for exclusion zones ASAP.
sabat wrote: » The "debate" was deliberately staged in this manner to divide the electorate into two camps and obfuscate the true nature of what occurred in the referendum. You were either a baby murderer or a religious whackjob-the middle ground were harangued and marginalised and rational, systematic analysis of what was being voted on became impossible. It's actually astonishing how little attention was paid to the new article in the constitution-I would guess that a large percentage of yes voters (maybe as much as half or more) weren't even aware of its existence. To all those yes voters who are about to go through my post history and write something like "you lost, get over it" ask yourself this: If a new government with an overall majority was elected tomorrow and decided to criminalise abortion what new "rights" gained in the referendum would prevent them from doing so? If you asked 1000 yes voters whether women won the right to have an abortion in the referendum how many would agree? If as you all concur abortion is a medical procedure then why does a specific medical procedure appear in a country's constitution? Is there any other example of this anywhere in the world? (Some mention general health rights but nothing like this.) As soon as the pro-life groups organise their strategy properly and get some serious legal minds on the case I could see the new article being thrown out sharpish, whatever about repealing the 8th amendment.
